Creation/evolution3

[Thumpalumpacus]

I agree with the points in your post, but I quoted your comments about assuming Drich's claims.

I think what you mean by "assuming Drich is right". is putting much confidence in Drich's claims? I agree with that.

Of course we need to assume Drich's claims are true to design experiments that might falsify his claims. That is what I mean when I say "assuming Drich is right".

No, we need not assume his claims are true in order to test them.

[watchamadoodle]

I agree with the points in your post, but I quoted your comments about assuming Drich's claims.

I think what you mean by "assuming Drich is right". is putting much confidence in Drich's claims? I agree with that.

Of course we need to assume Drich's claims are true to design experiments that might falsify his claims. That is what I mean when I say "assuming Drich is right".

No, we need not assume his claims are true in order to test them.

I can't believe we are arguing about things that I'm sure we both already understand fully. Are you guys trying to needle me until I leave the forum? That's the impression I'm getting.

Science is similar to a proof by contradiction. That is why the claims must be falsifiable. We assume the claim and look at the implications of that assumption. We design an experiment in hopes of demonstrating that the implication is false and therefore the original claim we assumed is also false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

[Chas]

No, we need not assume his claims are true in order to test them.

I can't believe we are arguing about things that I'm sure we both already understand fully. Are you guys trying to needle me until I leave the forum? That's the impression I'm getting.

Science is similar to a proof by contradiction. That is why the claims must be falsifiable. We assume the claim and look at the implications of that assumption. We design an experiment in hopes of demonstrating that the implication is false and therefore the original claim we assumed is also false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

Not really. We form a hypothesis and test it. We don't assume it's true.

It is not the same as Proof by Contradiction which is a logical proof of a true/false proposition. In science, it is rare to form true/false hypotheses.

[FatAndFaithless]

I've generally seen proof by contradiction when it comes to mathematical proofs, not really in scientific, empirically testable propositions.

[Thumpalumpacus]

We probably do agree more than we disagree, but trust me, when you say something like "scientists assume the truth of what they're testing", one of the several dipshits running around here will point to that as proof that science is rigged.

Of course for the purposes of experiment, scientists can behave as if the hypothesis is true. They don't have to do so.

[watchamadoodle]

We probably do agree more than we disagree, but trust me, when you say something like "scientists assume the truth of what they're testing", one of the several dipshits running around here will point to that as proof that science is rigged.

Of course for the purposes of experiment, scientists can behave as if the hypothesis is true. They don't have to do so.

O.k. that makes sense.

[RobbyPants]

Evolved man or "monkey man" is man without a soul, and In the Garden Man created in the image of God, would be man with a soul. That would leave room for whole complete fossil record that could not biblically be reconciled. It also explains the city Cain moved to and the wives and husbands the children of Adam and Eve took for themselves. (They intermingled with monkey man/woman and pass their gift onto their children.)

I used to believe this when I was in college.

I was always fairly "scientific minded", and it bothered me any time I'd find incongruities in the Bible. I would typically strive to remove the cognitive dissonance as quickly as possible by coming up with as minimum of an ad hoc rationalization as I could. As soon as I thought the problem was reconciled, I'd stop thinking about it, lest I find more holes in my new belief. It was very dishonest of me.

So, I was quite happy believing that there could have been "humans" before Adam and Eve without souls, and that the six "days" of creation weren't literal days... and nearly ten years later, I took the time to read the order of the days in Genesis one and realized they were all out of order. Luckily, I noticed this within a month or two of me eventually letting go of my faith, so I didn't waste any more time trying to further rationalize it. Lucky me!

[Tonus]

You know, if we really were created in god's image, that could explain the massive lag time. God created earth and got the ball rolling, then he goes off to host a celestial kegger or something, and billions of years later he pushes some hooker to the floor and shouts "OMFM! I forgot all about earth!" He returns and finds that the planet is evolving nicely and self-aware humans are starting to emerge in Africa, so he decides he'll just make this little garden in the mid-east and if things work out, he'll just extend it and invite those cute little hairless apes to join in the fun.

...well shit, it didn't work out. Time for another kegger!

[Drich]

That is anecdotal not empirical. I just saw a UFO. Are you going to take my word for it or do you want pictures? That is the difference between anecdotal and empirical. Empirical evidence is tangible evidence.

Not always look up the term 'emperical.'
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Again it simply means something that can be verified, and not based on pure logic. as the defination suggest this can be as trivial as someone's experience.

So again an example of Empirical evidence is a believer's experience with God where as The big Bang and Macro Evolution are solely based in logic or theory and are not supported by empirical evidence.

Therefore it takes far more faith to believe in the big bang or Macro evolution than it takes to believe in God. (Hence the Mustard seed Christ spoke of)

From our observations of the cosmos, we have gathered a plethora of information (empirical data) that agrees with the the hypothesis of the big bang as presented through QM and allows us to present it as a theory.

Ahhh, no. Epirical data would be data gather from witnessing a big bang or recreating one. What you have is a theory first, and 'scientist' cramming everything around us to fit that theory, which is the oppsite of 'empirical data.'

To date, there is no evidence (empirical data) that suggests otherwise.

You have none for it either.
Again look to the actual defination of the word, not what you think it means.

When you look at a star that is 100,000 light years away, you are looking at what the star was 100.000 years ago. When you look at the sun, you see what it was 8 minutes ago. We can see into the past.

So, in your 'faith' you believe that there are NO anomolus or unknown phenomina with in 100,000 light years that would change, alter, bend, refract, augument, accelerate, or decelerate visiable or invisiable light waves that would distort our view and subsequent understanding of the light source? What about this thing call "gravity?" Maybe you should google it and how it can distort light waves... Just in the case of gravity we would have to know of every single source of gravity, and consider how close our light come in contact to said gravitational source and either take year off or add years to the light waves as we see them. (The thing is from one single point in time and space we can not do that.) And that is what we can account for.
so again. You are deep into the realm of faith to assume that a point of light 100,000 light years away is indeed 100,000 light years old. Because light itself is not a constant.

[link] https://www.google.com/search?q=how+does...gws_rd=ssl
[/link]

'wordlesstech']Right now, Hubble’s Ultra Deep Field IR can see as far as 480 million years after the Big Bang.

The James Webb Space Telescope will allow us to see 200 million years after the Big Bang. In a cosmic scale, that’s almost like looking at the beginning of the Universe.

This is you at the alter of your faith: hook line and sinker..

---

but again they are both just PURE theory based on logic. The application of the theory in these cases takes observiable phenominoma like the fossile record and 'old light' and assimilates them into what is believed. Nothing conclusive in the fossile records point to the viablity of Evolution, nor can the theory of evolution be vetted through the scientific method. That why it remains pure theory with no empirical evidence that supports it. Rahter it works backwards from real science. In real/applied science the observation of emperical evidence supports a theory from the ground up. In fringe sciences like with evolution and the big bang, their creators (darwin and Lemaître 'a priest') postiulated their theories LONG before we have anything to support what they thought. So in the cases of the big bang as well as evolution we are working from the top down. Meaning we have a core theory and then we look for anything to support what is already believed. (confirmation bias)

Which aagain has been attributed to belief in God.

It seems to me 'science' is the faith based system of belief while Belief in God is supported by evidence.

My understanding of science is that somebody develops a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis using data that was not available to develop the hypothesis (otherwise we get the Texas sharpshooter fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy ).

The hypothesis can be developed any way we want - as long as it isn't developed using the same data we use to test it later. A person can develop a hypothesis by consulting a Ouija board if he/she wants.

The data we use to test the hypothesis can be from the past - as long as it isn't used to develop the hypothesis. So a newly discovered fossil can be used to test the theory of evolution. Likewise a newly observed star from billions of years ago can be used to test the theory of the Big Bang.

So evolution and the Big Bang are perfectly scientific. (Again, I hope somebody will correct me if I have the details wrong in my explanation.)

I'm not saying they are not scientific, I am saying that they are not held to the same standards as the 'science' that goes into flight, cell phones, or medicine. Because nothing can be duplucated or produced to support either theory. Which puts is in the realm of faith.

---

Not even close. If you cannot show me, then it is not empirical. If it cannot be examined then it is not empirical. Let us have lunch sometime with a war veteran that is missing a limb and have your god regrow it on the spot. Now we have some empirical evidence that can be examined. It does not yet prove that god exits, but it does make the hypothesis plausible and worth investigating.

IMO, Drich's beliefs are empirical, because they are based on his own experiences and not based solely on logic. The problem with Drich's claims is that many ex-Christians and current Christians have failed to replicate his results using his A/S/K method. Drich says they gave up too soon or knocked on the wrong doors, but I say Drich should consider other explanations for his experiences. (Of course if he's happy believing what he believes then that's great. Good for him. )

Here is the dictionary definition of empirical:

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).

Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions. The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory and the testimony of others, ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

'Other explainations' would indeed explain a isolated incident or two. but if one has a life time of experiences that he has to default to the 'other possible explainations.' Then would Occam's razor apply?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ahhh, no. Epirical data would be data gather from witnessing a big bang or recreating one. What you have is a theory first, and 'scientist' cramming everything around us to fit that theory, which is the oppsite of 'empirical data.'

Wrong.

To date, there is no evidence (empirical data) that suggests otherwise.

http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/ast...os/bb_evid

I'm not saying they are not scientific, I am saying that they are not held to the same standards as the 'science' that goes into flight, cell phones, or medicine. Because nothing can be duplucated or produced to support either theory. Which puts is in the realm of faith.

This passage belies a complete ignorance of historical science. It's a shame we wasted taxpayer dollars trying to educate this dolt.